[RascalPuff]

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance. These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

The false enigma is resolved in the recognition that the entire physical frame of reference is - 4-Dimensionally - ever enlarging, pinning the fans to their bleachers, all the cars to the asphalt in the parking lot, the city accomodating the ball park and the omnidirectionally expanding planet the city rests upon: rising up to create the illusion that the apparently curving baseball trajectory, which is actually a moving in a straight line ('geodesic'), appears to be moving in a parabolic arc. When a test object is projected straight up in the air, it does not 'slow down, turn around and return to the catcher. No indeed. The catcher - or the ground - rises up to overtake and impact the test object.


Copyright 1977 United Feature Syndicate Inc.

Here's what false authority says of Einstein's 4-D geodesic:
"We cannot visualize such a curved space. Because humanity is not four dimensional." - The LIFE Science Library's UNIVERSE, p. 179

“The General Theory (of Relativity) presented a completely altered view of gravitation. It is viewed as a property of space rather than as a force between bodies. "As a result of the presence of matter, space becomes a curve and bodies follow the line of least resistance." These 4-D lines are called ‘geodesics’.” - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE

Neither will it ever be visualized, until Matter is recognized to be 4-Dimensionally expanding. As simply illustrated here and affluently verified throughout this mere historical - previously
unrecognized - review.


(Illustration C: 4-D MASS-FIELD STRAIGHT-LINE GEODESIC <Back to Euclidean geometry>).
The Father Of Experimental Science, Galileo, proved that Aristotle was wrong when the latter surmised that heavier objects, fall faster in descent, than lighter objects, when dropped from the same height at the same time, above the earth's surface.
It does seem logical. It just doesn't happen to be true. Everyone who is anyone in physics today, falls on hocus pocus, to make this annoying fact go away. Reduce it to a trivial matter of no - ho hum - importance. Whereas, it is a major, unresolved enigma in theoretical physics. It is often falsely held up, either as a non-issue, or as a (falsely) resolved issue.

Galileo is said to be the first to make and note proof of that unexpected fact of reality. Being the universal rate of descent of all objects in free fall, regardless of their mass values (in the absence of air resistance). 16 (32) feet per second squared, for bodies descending on or near the surface of the earth.

Much (low key, back stage) concern has been given to Galileo's unarguable fact of descending bodies in a gravitational field; ever since it was proven. Especially after Newton made a law of gravity that does indeed dictate: the heavier object should indeed descend faster than the lighter - less massive - object...
Because, according to Newton's laws, there should inevitably be a greater mutual attraction between, say, a descending cannonball and the earth, than between a descending bb shot and the earth.

The (ironic) mystery is frequently and glibly said to be resolved in the fact of the coincidence of inertial and gravitational mass values intersecting at the same qualitatively accelerating coordinates.

An obligatory description of the unanticipated and astonishing coincidence is not any explanation of the still completely unexplained *coincidence...

By definition - like gravity and for exactly the same reason - *not understood (and stonewalled) by the scientific- academic status quo. Representatives of which all too often are found pretending an understanding of that which they do not understand. Furthermore, falsely representing what they misrepresent.

That is to say, a cannonball, according to Newton's Law, should (is supposed to) fall faster than a descending bb shot. The cannonball does not fall faster than descending bb shots or grains of sand or a leaping pod of airborne Blue whales. Everything falls at the same rate of acceleration, regardless of its mass value: *in the absence of air resistance...

*This last qualification is important; there are many critics who aggressively introduce 'terminal velocity' of descending object in free fall above the earth's surface as being about 120 m.p.h., which is true, the critic sums up the argument by adding that if the earth is truly accelerating - expanding ever faster to rise up and meet apparently descending objects, then there wouldn't be a terminal velocity, and free falling objects 'would accelerate', instead of reaching 'TV' - terminal velocity - a free falling parachutist before the chute is deployed, for example. All of this is to remind any such critic that terminal velocity limits the free falling object, due to air resistance: in the absence of air resistance the descent rate does in fact accelerate in corroboration with the 'proposed' <abundantly proved> acclerating expansion of the earth.).


Proclaiming that inertial mass resistance (in allegedly unmoving space) to gravity (in descent time) exactly cancels out the gravity: does not explain why the allegedly unrelated (space and time) values are equal.

Inertial values always (without explanation) proportionately canceling out what would be the difference between inertial and gravitational mass values...

Einstein's *General Principle is the only functional solution to this (The descending objects are not really falling at all.) It continues: *unemployed.